§ Upon the motion 683 for the further consideration of the report of the Croydon Railway Bill,
§ Mr. Lochmoved the insertion of the clause recommended by the Railway Committee, viz., "And be it further enacted, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to exempt the railway by this or the said recited acts authorised to be made, from the provisions of any general act relating to railways which may pass during the present or any future Session of Parliament."
§ Mr. Easthopeobserved, that he should be happy to know what was the particular object of the clause which was proposed by the Railways' Committees to be inserted in all the railway bills now passing through Parliament. The clause, in his opinion, required explanation; because he confessed, that though he had very attentively considered it, and this, too, with the desire of understanding it, he could not comprehend it. He lamented, exceedingly, that the chairman of the Committee was not present; for he himself had never yet been able to understand the precise object of the Committee. He was utterly unable to divine why such a clause should be inserted in any railway bill. Did those who proposed it suppose, that any railway bill had given, or could give to the directors the power of opposing the authority of Parliament? He hoped, that some Member of the Committee would enlighten him as to the true meaning of the clause, for he felt a great desire to understand it.
§ Mr. Lochsaid, that the objection of the hon. Member was somewhat late. The clause appeared to him to be perfectly intelligible, and the Committee had taken great pains before bringing it before the House.
§ Mr. Freshfieldcould not allow the observations and question of the hon. Member for Leicester to be put to a Member of the Committee, asking them to explain what could possibly be the meaning of the clause now introduced into this bill, and expressing some doubt as to the object of that clause, without giving an answer to that question. The Southampton Railway Bill and other bills were before Parliament. Parliament was aware that much inconvenience was likely to arise, if railways were not put under some reasonable regulations. That was distinctly stated by the President of the Board of Trade, when he moved for the 684 Committee upon railway communication. The simple question was, whether such regulations as were necessary for the protection of the public with respect to railways should be inserted in the bills now before Parliament? These regulations might be introduced into such bills, so as to operate disadvantageously on those particular companies; and the question, therefore, in Committee was, whether they would impose regulations that should be binding on this particular company, when all were not before Parliament? It was felt to be a much more liberal course to bind the railways that were not before Parliament by such regulations as were of general application, instead of taking advantage of those particular railways that were before Parliament, and introducing regulations into their bills. This was his answer to the difficulty. Instead of exposing this company to the difficulty of contending whether the regulations were reasonable or not in their particular case, it was proposed that this company should be bound only by such regulations as were binding on all railways, as well those which were not before Parliament as those which were. The company was now only bound by such regulations as were of general application.
§ Mr. Easthopebegged, in explanation, to be allowed to say that he really did not know, at the time he mentioned the subject, the particular railway to which the clause was proposed to be added. His only object was to understand, before it was introduced, what were its real meaning and effect. Of these he was still ignorant.
§ Clause added.